Item 2D - 2005 Leg.Policies Doc - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

manage these competing needs through their permitting procedures, which outline location, construction, and traffic control standards. Increased interest in use of public ROW thus increases municipal monitoring and managing the increased disruption to the ROW. Despite the increased workload, industry accusations regarding permitting delays by Oregon cities have not been substantiated, despite municipal requests for specific permitting problem areas. Thus, legislation aimed at curtailing cities' existing permitting procedures is not appropriate and could erode municipal activities that sustain the useful life of city streets and roads as surfaces are repeatedly cut and patched. Cities manage the public ROW as a service to their citizens. Cities receive compensation from telecommunications providers when providers use the public ROW as a part of their doing business. Since the passage of the Act in 1996, carriers are increasingly insistent that local regulation and management procedures not impede their ability to bring ~state-of-the-art' telecommunications services to Oregonians, and argue that the wide variety of fees and charges they are faced with by multiple jurisdictions has that effect. In light of recent, clearly written court opinions, this argument is simply not credible. Providers offer a wide variety of services at a wide variety of fee structures to thousands of customers without missing a billing; a relative handful of individual city agreements cannot be a barrier to their operations. The same computer chip that can calculate an individual citizen's bill, out of thousands of bills, can calculate one city's fee. The policy is long-standing; complying with the policy is not structurally difficult. In conclusion, adequate compensation for use of the public ROW should continue to be collected from service providers. Management authority should also remain localized to allow cities to meet existing and future federal requirements for nondiscriminatory access. Increasing use of ROW also increases the need for adequate construction and safety criteria. Cities, consulting with appropriate engineering resources, should be responsible for creating and enforcing standards that ensure effective ROW management and accessibility. Throughout 2000, cities and industry met (via House Bill 3345, 1999) as a task force aimed at finding common ground across a number of administrative and compensation areas related to industry's use of the public ROW. This task force discussed new ways of protecting vital municipal assets while at the same time simplifying the local management scheme and providing for increased consistency and minimizing the potential for creating competitive disadvantages across the industry. The report of the task force's findings is available for review. Related Issues: Provider Fee Pass-Through to Customers: Currently, some providers directly pass all or part of their cost for this use of the public right-of-way onto their customers by calling it a tax on their customers' telephone bills. Such a cost is not a tax. It is a business operating cost incurred by providers when they use the public ROW. When the cost is directly passed through to the customer, the citizen is, in effect, paying the telecommunications provider for the providers' privilege to use that citizen's publicly managed ROW. Such a practice is a misrepresentation of billing to telecommunications customers. With few exceptions, providers are not required to pass on these particular expenses to customers; they choose to do so. City of Eugene Legislative Policies, 2005 Session 56